Journal info (provided by editor)

% accepted last year
n/a
% immediately rejected last year
n/a
Articles published last year
n/a
Manuscripts received last year
n/a
Open access status
n/a
Manuscript handling fee
n/a

Impact factors (provided by editor)

Two-year impact factor
n/a
Five-year impact factor
n/a

Aims and scope

The editor has not yet provided this information.

Duration of manuscript handling phases

Duration first review round
3.7 months
Tot. handling time acc. manuscripts
3.7 months
Decision time immediate rejection
n/a
Average number of review rounds
1.0 rounds
Difficulty of reviewer comments
n/a
Average number of review reports
2.0 reports

Characteristics of peer review process

Quality of review reports
5.0 / 5.0
Overall rating manuscript handling
4.0 / 5.0

Latest review

First review round: 16.0 weeks. Overall rating: 4 (very good). Outcome: Accepted.

Motivation:
The review process at the journal was very good, and the editor kept us consistently informed about the status of the manuscript. The peer-review process also provided valuable and constructive feedback. My only observation is that, during the typesetting stage, the title and abstract of our manuscript were mistakenly swapped with those of another study. Although not a serious issue, when I pointed it out, the correction was made by simply copying and pasting, without reviewing spacing or certain elements present in the original abstract—this is particularly noticeable in the Spanish version. Nevertheless, it is a good journal.